Monday, September 16, 2013

Important Principles in Theological Discussion: Fuller Reflects on Rules of Engagement

When, in The Gospel Worthy of All
Acceptation, Andrew Fuller entered the lists of controversy with
both hyper-Calvinists and Arminians on the issue of human inability
and responsibility, he made a statement about controversy in general
that seems an excellent principle to bear in mind. He wanted to avoid
“the spirit into which we are apt to be betrayed, when engaged in
controversy—that of magnifying the importance of the subject beyond
its proper bounds” (1:11). Throughout his ministry he had abundant
opportunity to check himself on this principle as well as to examine
the details of controversial method. In light of the necessity of
carrying on controversy within fraternal, and sometimes not so
fraternal, bounds, it would be profitable to look at some of these
ideas of a master Baptist controversialist. The three mentioned in
this article are operative in Fuller’s engagement with the
Socinians.

First, one must be convinced that
doctrinal content is important. One of the ideas against which Fuller
argued in dealing with Socinianism was “the non-importance of
principle itself, in order to the enjoyment of the divine favor.”
(317) Socinians, as well as Deists, disliked all the doctrinal points
that Calvinists considered as constituent of saving faith. “Nothing
is more common,” Fuller observed, “than for professed Infidels to
exclaim against Christianity, on account of its rendering the belief
of the gospel necessary to salvation.” (317) Those who objected to
the doctrinal content of Christianity substituted morality and
sincerity as the means of acceptance before God. In so doing, they
really substituted another doctrinal basis for eternal life. Their
enlightened rationality and genteel manners made obnoxious to them
such teachings as vindictive justice, the necessity of atonement for
forgiveness, divine sovereignty in salvation, the deity of Christ,
and the final infallible authority of Scripture built on its divine
inspiration. These ideas, they felt, were so clouded in obscurities,
caused such confusion and division among Christians, that the
uncertainty was purposeful on the part of the deity “to whet human
industry, and the spirit of inquiry into the things of God, to give
scope for the exercise of men’s charity and mutual forbearance of
one another, and to be one great means of cultivating the moral
dispositions,” not the grasping of perfect knowledge “which so
few can attain.” (257)

In Fuller’s opinion, they rejected
the inspiration and clarity of Scripture because the doctrines built
on such a view ran counter to their rational assumptions. “One
thing, however, is sufficiently evident,” Fuller noted, “while
they vent their antipathy against the holy scriptures in such
indecent language, they betray a consciousness that the contents of
that sacred volume are against them.” (321). On the one hand,
therefore, the idea that doctrinal principles are unimportant to
faith simply cannot be maintained in true Christianity. The belief of
the revealed truths of Scripture are necessary to faith, not only for
the sake of the truth, but for the frame of mind that must be present
for the full belief of that which is revealed about human sin, our
acceptance before God only in the righteousness of another, and of
God’s prerogative in granting this to whom he will. “Are the
doctrines which Socinians disown (supposing them to be true),”
Fuller asked, “of such importance, that a rejection of them would
endanger their salvation?” (194) He believed so and stated as much.

On the other hand, the resistance to
principle is simply a façade for the positive presentation of a
different doctrinal system. In theological controversy, the cause of
truth is not aided by minimizing the importance of any doctrine that
constitutes a part of the faith. Our intent must be to work toward
further clarification and eventual full unity and acceptance even of
controverted points and hard doctrines. Any temptation to declare a
moratorium on doctrinal engagement must be resisted, for it is a path
to the minimization of the importance of truth in Christian faith.

Fuller, as a second principle, pointed
out that nothing substantial is gained, but true weakness comes to
the fore, when argument proceeds on the basis of insult. Argument by
insult seeks to discredit a position by bringing in impertinent data.
Being judgmental about the emotional state or the mental abilities of
an antagonist does nothing to discredit the argument. When a Socinian
saw the determination of orthodox Christians to defend the deity of
Christ, he concluded that “there is no reasoning with them” and
felt that they were “to be pitied, and considered as being under a
debility of mind, in this respect, however sensible and rational in
others.” (257) Socinians felt that they were the true thinkers of
the day and that soon their viewpoint would win over the vulgar,
that is the non-thinking, non-innovative part of the population that
simply accept the rational convictions of the few. This is the way
that Trinitarian orthodoxy had won the day; leading intellects
formulated the creeds and the vulgar simply followed them. So it is
with science in any day. People believe what has always been believed
until the more enlightened set a new standard, or, as it were, create
a paradigm shift. Fuller recognized the case to be so in matters of
scientific research where knowledge is dependent on human
investigation which yields only to certain esoteric skills. But in
matters of divine revelation, in the grasping of truths for the
eternal well-being of the soul, things that eye has not seen and ear
has not heard God has revealed. “We have a standard; and one, too,
that is adapted to the understanding of the simple.” The Socinians
considered ordinary persons as “incapable of forming religious
sentiments for themselves; as if the Bible were to them a sealed
book, and they had only to believe the system that happened to be in
fashion, or rather, to have been in fashion some years before
they were born, and to dance after the pipe of learned men.” (324)
But if the Scriptures are indeed so obscure and adapted only to
create genial moral dispositions, “why this abusive and insulting
language?” The Socinians defended their rejection of orthodoxy on
the supposed indecipherability of the standard of belief combined
with the naivety and mental debility of the orthodox. Such a
presentation does not amount to an argument and shows the uncertain
ground on which the Socinian claim to be rational Christians was
based.

Third, though controversy creates an
atmosphere where the temptation to insult is great, one must not be
too quick to take offense. Fuller looked closely at the position of
his antagonist and took care not to identify an argument as an
insult. If an argument aimed at discrediting his doctrine assumed a
discernible position and from it drew pertinent inferences, even if
the inferences were severe toward his belief, he did not consider
such strategy or argument insulting. If Socinians believed that
belief in the deity of Christ is wrong, and the consequent worship of
him is forbidden by the commands against idolatry, and that orthodox
Christian are therefore, idolaters, that is but a necessary
conclusion from a premise they think is clear, and is certainly open
to candid investigation by their opponents. Fuller took all this in
stride and wrote, “If Socinians have a right to think Trinitarians
idolaters, they have, doubtless a right to call them so; and, if they
be able, to make it appear so: nor ought we to consider ourselves as
insulted by it. I have no idea of being offended with any man, in
affairs of this kind, for speaking what he believes to be the truth.”

Courting of compliments from one
another did no good in such disagreements but instead antagonists
should “encourage an unreservedness of expression, provided it be
accompanied with sobriety and benevolence.” (205) The charge of
bigotry, however, brought against orthodox Christians would be true,
and not an ad hominem insult, only under certain
characteristics that Fuller delineated. But the conviction that
certain beliefs are necessary to salvation, and an attachment to
those doctrines “on account of their appearing to us to be revealed
in the Scriptures” (203) does not lend itself to the charge of
bigotry, but is a manifestation of fair, honest, benevolent, and
rational forthrightness. Concerning the several and highly pertinent
points of controversy, Fuller wrote.

It must be allowed,
that these doctrines may be what we consider them, not only
true, but essential to Christianity. Christianity, like every
other system of truth, must have some principles which are essential
to it: and, if those in question be such, it cannot justly be imputed
to pride or bigotry, it cannot be uncharitable, or uncandid, or
indicate any want of benevolence, to think so. Neither can it be
wrong to draw a natural and necessary conclusion, that those persons
who reject these principles are not Christians. To think justly of
persons is, in no respect, inconsistent with an universal good will
towards them. It is not, in the least, contrary to charity, to
consider unbelievers in the light in which the scriptures represent
them; nor those who reject what is essential to the gospel, as
rejecting the gospel itself. (194)

To deny the importance of principle is
a path to infidelity. To argue by insult, corrects no opponent and
brings no light to the point of disagreement. To take something as an
insult that is intended as a salutary, truth-clarifying,
gospel-manifesting, God-glorifying proposition of biblical doctrine
does nothing to reconcile divergent positions and may be dangerous to
the soul.

Tom J. Nettles

________________

Here are Dr. Nettles' previous articles in this series on Andrew Fuller vs. Non-Calvinism: